One of the most talked about new productions in London's West End at the moment is a revival of The Elephant Man starring three time Oscar nominated, and now Tony nominated actor Bradley Cooper as the famously deformed Joseph Merrick whose gained unprecedented social recognition in Victorian society. Fittingly, the theatre community on both sides of the Atlantic have been quick to fawn over Cooper's celebrity just as the gentry do with Merrick in the play.
In Quentin Letts' review for the Daily Mail, he cites that, not having yet had the opportunity to buy a programme, he had had no idea who Bradley Cooper was, but felt this young actor could be going places. This is hilarious, not least of all because the show's marquee, with Cooper's face and name emblazoned ever more clearly than that of the name of the play or theatre, should make his celebrity obvious (as does the entrance applause he usually receives).
Letts' comments are familiar of the regular theatregoers (probably with subscriptions to the National, Donmar or Royal Court) who express huge distaste at celebrity casting and event theatre in the West End (though don't be surprised if you see them at Cumberbatch's Hamlet at the Barbican later this year). Many claim that this casting cheapens the West End and takes away opportunity from young hardworking actors, with proponents of such casting suggesting that without said Hollywood stars, the plays in question likely wouldn't be being produced, and by encouraging more people into the theatre, they do the entire industry a huge financial favour.
Given the quality of Bradley Cooper's performance in this play, I have no qualms with his casting, seeing as the performance is what I consider to be the most important factor in deciding such things, and as such I had no reason to be irritated by it. I've grown irritated by it.
I can sympathise with reviewers who only fixate on Cooper's performance and have little to say about the play itself or the other actors who do just as much, if not more work on the same stage, given that they have to sell papers and that Cooper's reviews, much like his performance, are what people are interested in paying money for. Similarly, the Tony nominating committee each year have to take into account the star names that will get the broadcast mentioned in more mainstream circles and gain them primetime viewership during the telecast.
My issue is more with the exclusion of Alessandro Nivola. That isn't to say he wasn't nominated for a Tony, it's simply in the wrong category. With Cooper nominated as Best Leading Actor in a Play, Nivola is nominated for a Featured Role, in spite of the fact that the play is experienced through his perspective, and he has not only more stage time than Cooper, more interactions with other actors, more lines and a far wider display of emotions, both in his excellent portrayal and in the script, only this seems to impress less because he's able to use all of his facial muscles in the process and doesn't contort his limbs.
This isn't to say that I begrudge Cooper his nomination, I consider both to be leading performances, I simply don't believe that the existence of celebrity on a West End or Broadway stage should lead to a disregard for credit where it is due, that is to say that Alessandro Nivola ought to be considered a leading actor, receive as many ovations in the papers as his co-star, and the final ovation in the bows. I suspect Quentin Letts might agree.
In Quentin Letts' review for the Daily Mail, he cites that, not having yet had the opportunity to buy a programme, he had had no idea who Bradley Cooper was, but felt this young actor could be going places. This is hilarious, not least of all because the show's marquee, with Cooper's face and name emblazoned ever more clearly than that of the name of the play or theatre, should make his celebrity obvious (as does the entrance applause he usually receives).
Letts' comments are familiar of the regular theatregoers (probably with subscriptions to the National, Donmar or Royal Court) who express huge distaste at celebrity casting and event theatre in the West End (though don't be surprised if you see them at Cumberbatch's Hamlet at the Barbican later this year). Many claim that this casting cheapens the West End and takes away opportunity from young hardworking actors, with proponents of such casting suggesting that without said Hollywood stars, the plays in question likely wouldn't be being produced, and by encouraging more people into the theatre, they do the entire industry a huge financial favour.
Given the quality of Bradley Cooper's performance in this play, I have no qualms with his casting, seeing as the performance is what I consider to be the most important factor in deciding such things, and as such I had no reason to be irritated by it. I've grown irritated by it.
I can sympathise with reviewers who only fixate on Cooper's performance and have little to say about the play itself or the other actors who do just as much, if not more work on the same stage, given that they have to sell papers and that Cooper's reviews, much like his performance, are what people are interested in paying money for. Similarly, the Tony nominating committee each year have to take into account the star names that will get the broadcast mentioned in more mainstream circles and gain them primetime viewership during the telecast.
My issue is more with the exclusion of Alessandro Nivola. That isn't to say he wasn't nominated for a Tony, it's simply in the wrong category. With Cooper nominated as Best Leading Actor in a Play, Nivola is nominated for a Featured Role, in spite of the fact that the play is experienced through his perspective, and he has not only more stage time than Cooper, more interactions with other actors, more lines and a far wider display of emotions, both in his excellent portrayal and in the script, only this seems to impress less because he's able to use all of his facial muscles in the process and doesn't contort his limbs.
This isn't to say that I begrudge Cooper his nomination, I consider both to be leading performances, I simply don't believe that the existence of celebrity on a West End or Broadway stage should lead to a disregard for credit where it is due, that is to say that Alessandro Nivola ought to be considered a leading actor, receive as many ovations in the papers as his co-star, and the final ovation in the bows. I suspect Quentin Letts might agree.